as far as I could tell almost all of Jim's comments are minor, and many are editorial

17:17:47 [Carsten]

alan: are the comments of the reviewers of profile document of a kind that allows us to publish soon, say within a week?

17:17:47 [alanr]

ack rinke

17:17:47 [Zakim]

Rinke, you wanted to ask why

17:18:14 [pfps]

alan, please answer Rinke's question

17:18:16 [bmotik]

q+

17:18:29 [alanr]

q?

17:18:32 [alanr]

ack bmotik

17:18:36 [bmotik]

Zakim, unmute me

17:18:36 [Zakim]

bmotik was not muted, bmotik

17:18:40 [Carsten]

alan: should be up to the editors

17:19:03 [Rinke]

s/alan/rinke

17:19:14 [Carsten]

boris: will go through them this weekend and address them; there seems nothing special about them.

17:20:04 [baojie]

+q

17:20:07 [Carsten]

as an editor of the profiles document, I agree with Boris and Rinke.

17:20:17 [sandro]

q+ to ask about process/timing here

17:20:25 [Carsten]

Boris: when will the actual documents be generated for publication

17:20:36 [JeffP]

Jie is in the queue too

17:20:42 [alanr]

ack Jie

17:20:48 [alanr]

ack baojie

17:20:51 [sandro]

q-

17:20:52 [alanr]

ack sandro

17:21:04 [Carsten]

Jie: Jim's review is mostly editorial, can be easily addressed

17:21:26 [bmotik]

Zakim, mute me

17:21:26 [Zakim]

bmotik should now be muted

17:21:29 [Zakim]

-??P16

17:21:33 [Carsten]

Ian's is definitely mainly editoral, just read it

17:22:09 [Carsten]

Jeff: regarding my review, it may also be helpful if Boris goes through it and responds

17:22:27 [Zakim]

+??P0

17:22:35 [cgolbrei]

+christine

17:22:46 [bmotik]

q+

17:23:08 [bmotik]

Zakim, unmute me

17:23:08 [Zakim]

bmotik should no longer be muted

17:23:09 [alanr]

ack bmotik

17:23:12 [Carsten]

Jeff: how to draw the line between comments that have to be addressed before publication and those that don't

17:23:32 [Rinke]

zakim, ??P0 is christine

17:23:32 [Zakim]

+christine; got it

17:24:01 [Carsten]

boris: no showstopper in any of the reviews. I'll respond.

17:24:03 [Rinke]

zakim, christine is cgolbrei

17:24:03 [Zakim]

+cgolbrei; got it

17:24:12 [JeffP]

q+

17:24:17 [bmotik]

Zakim, mute me

17:24:17 [Zakim]

bmotik should now be muted

17:24:19 [alanr]

ack JeffP

17:25:54 [bmotik]

Yes

17:26:12 [Carsten]

Alan: since Jeff seems uncomfortable, please process his review first

17:26:19 [alanr]

q?

17:26:40 [Carsten]

Alan: Reviews of tests and conformance

17:27:42 [Carsten]

mike: my review doesn't need to be processed before publication

17:27:55 [pfps]

q+

17:28:13 [Carsten]

s/my review/the reviews/

17:29:33 [alanr]

ack pfps

17:29:53 [pfps]

I don't see any show-stoppers in Michael's review (but he should be able to speak for himself)

17:30:32 [Carsten]

sandro: awkward to manage to publish in a few week rather than next week with the other documents

17:31:28 [Carsten]

alan: will contact Ian and Michael and produce a version until Sunday that people can look at on Monday

17:31:39 [pfps]

I'm fine with publishing

17:32:46 [Carsten]

discussion of "unknown"

17:33:09 [Carsten]

alan: distinguish minimally conforming vs conforming

17:33:15 [alanr]

versus "complete"

17:33:22 [Carsten]

pfps: first is trivial, second close to impossible

17:33:50 [Carsten]

pfps: minimally conforming can return unknown, but should not; conforming must not return unknown

17:34:12 [Carsten]

alan: how can anything be conforming with OWL Full?

17:35:05 [Carsten]

???

17:35:33 [sandro]

Peter: it's perfectly okay for an OWL Full reasoner to return Unknown -- there are various times it's fine, like it's been 5 days, or it's hit a known incompleteness, etc.

17:36:02 [alanr]

q?

17:36:04 [Carsten]

zakim, unmute me

17:36:04 [Zakim]

carsten should no longer be muted

17:36:38 [Carsten]

sandro: how do distinguish in the marketplace a trivial from a "hard working" reasoner trying to avoid unknown?

17:36:57 [Carsten]

pfps: you could have an OWL Full reasoner complete for OWL DL

17:36:59 [Carsten]

q+

17:37:20 [alanr]

= bade

17:37:21 [Carsten]

???

17:37:24 [alanr]

= v. bad

17:37:58 [Carsten]

pfps: difficult to distinguish different degrees of completeness

17:38:35 [sandro]

Sandro: It's sounds like there's no way -- in the OWL-Full-By-Itself market -- to use Conformance to segment the market, to have different classes of power of Reasoners

17:39:08 [Carsten]

pfps: message of recursion theory that the boundary is messy

17:39:12 [pfps]

some rationales for should not are in the email I sent out, for OWL Full there can be others, including known incompleteness (actually it would be possible for an OWL 2 DL tool to return unknown and say that it just doesn't implement everything)

17:40:30 [Carsten]

pfps: too many possibilities, often unreasonable assumptions

17:40:56 [alanr]

ack Carsten

17:41:31 [sandro]

Sandro: What I'm hearing, and sounds right to me: OWL Full is left without useful distinctions inside it, because all the useful distinctions have been pulled out as other profiles.

17:41:34 [pfps]

my initial response (minimally conforming) was a reducto ad absurdum

17:42:02 [Carsten]

sandro: if as soon as something is complete we pull it out as a profile, owl full will necessarily remain in a not-very-useful condition

17:43:01 [Carsten]

sandro: I suggest to take out "should not" and use another phrasing

17:43:07 [Carsten]

zakim, mute me

17:43:07 [Zakim]

carsten should now be muted

17:43:47 [pfps]

this could be a *addition* instead of a *replacement*

17:43:49 [Carsten]

sandro: owl full reasoner may be distinguished by the number of cases for which they return unknown; better reasoners will return unknown very rarely

17:43:59 [sandro]

Replacein "It SHOULD NOT return Unknown." with "We expect OWL Full reasoners to be characterized and distriinguished in the market by which situations they can handle without returning unknown."